• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Remembering Slavery?

Mike

Well-known member
Like this?

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/aug/05/the-scars-of-america-nude-artist-slavery-sites-nona-faustine
 

Red Bull

Well-known member
America made up about 8% of the Atlantic Slave trade. But you would think we were the only ones involved. Blacks were lucky to come here in stead of a muslim country.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The ones here should get down on their knees everyday thanking whoever brought their ancestors over here as slaves. They could just as well be over in Africa getting a cup of rice per day from the UN.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Red Bull said:
America made up about 8% of the Atlantic Slave trade. But you would think we were the only ones involved. Blacks were lucky to come here in stead of a muslim country.
True but the fact that our country had millions of slaves as well will be a dark cloud over the heritage of all americans.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
"
"True but the fact that our country had millions of slaves as well will be a dark cloud over the heritage of all americans."

I think most of the Americans that were involved in slave trade are deceased. But I think the Americans that paid billions for African relief - I run into them everyday. I also know the slave trade was started by African tribes ridding themselves of thieves and prostitutes. I'm not going to draw any genetic connections - that would be racist.
 

Red Bull

Well-known member
We never came close to to millions of slaves TB. You can not find that kind of number anywhere. The whole Atlantic slave trade was not in the millions.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Red Bull said:
We never came close to to millions of slaves TB. You can not find that kind of number anywhere. The whole Atlantic slave trade was not in the millions.
Red there were 4 million in the country at the time of the war between the states. True by that time most had been born here of former slaves but they were still slaves.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Brad S said:
"
"True but the fact that our country had millions of slaves as well will be a dark cloud over the heritage of all americans."

I think most of the Americans that were involved in slave trade are deceased. But I think the Americans that paid billions for African relief - I run into them everyday. I also know the slave trade was started by African tribes ridding themselves of thieves and prostitutes. I'm not going to draw any genetic connections - that would be racist.
Brad nobody is arguing who started it or where it started. The fact is "it existed here" both north and south and was exploited for well over 300 years just as it was in other parts of the world. No denying that. Just because others did it did mean we had to but I guess greed always grabs many and pulls them in. There is a reason much of the population of the Indies and South America is black or black mixed race....and it's becoming more and more common even here.
 

Red Bull

Well-known member
Slavery was world wide. Many nations were built by slaves and slavery. Just or unjust it was the way of the world. I fail to see how that makes this country any worse than any other. Muslims are openly doing the same thing today and worse, but the headlines on the news is about Ferguson Mo.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I never made the points you addressed. My point is slavery doesn't shame me in the least. There are those that would try to exact tribute from the innocent, but I ain't having any of it. I don't argue slavery wasn't wrong, I sneer at those who only implicate the tiny minority (Americans) in the slave trade.

If you want to currently stand against the oppression of slavery, look at social security.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Brad true a very few owned slaves as a percentage of the whole, but the whole allowed it to continue. No you and I owe no one a penny for anything to do with slavery but it will always be a part of our heritage just as old glory and the confederate battle flag are part of our heritage. 400 years ago someone should have said "NO".
 

Mike

Well-known member
Slavery in the USA would have completely gone away in short order. The churches were deeply involved in abolition, and the trend of it was growing.

For example at Arlington, George Washington Custus (Grand Stepson of George Washington) had left in his Will that his slaves would be freed within 5 years after his death. As Executor of the Estate, Gen. R.E. Lee made it happen. This was a common occurrence during that time. It just wasn't happening fast enough for Abe because he had a growing population in the North that depended on the tariffs implemented on Southern goods.

Abe and the Federalists started blockading the southern ports (example: Charleston) to collect these high taxes. (There were no income taxes back then.) About 70% of all taxes were collected on Southern commodity shipments and it still wasn't enough. Plus, England was willing to pay more for cotton than the North and Abe saw to it that went North instead.

The South needed slavery to be economically viable at the time, and abolition wasn't getting traction as fast as the North wanted.

As soon as the North finished crushing the South, they began demolishing the American Indians in the West to allow the burgeoning Northern population to spread west to alleviate some of the over-population in the North.

Looking back on it, the North was nothing but a group of terrorists combing the country in search of U.S. citizens to degrade, massacre, and pillage in order to keep themselves prosperous.

The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous... Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
If the South hadn't been so dependent on the north for everything besides cotton a tariff would have been a non issue. Mike you think the southern aristocracy that did own most of the slaves was any less terroristic?? Many ministers and their churches used the bible to justify slavery thus giving everyone a clear conscience. The old BS about how well the slaves were treated doesn't add up when you consider every slave there would try to escape if he ever got a chance, often meaning death as well. You did quote one truth though. The north did crush the south.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Mike you think the southern aristocracy that did own most of the slaves was any less terroristic??

Absolutely. Southern slave owners didn't just kill slaves at will like Sherman and other Federal Generals proposed and did to the Indians. (Men, women, & children)

The South wasn't quite as dependent on the North as some would have us believe. Since British ships were constantly crossing the Atlantic for cotton,(if tariffs weren't too high to stifle the transactions) they must bring goods over for ship ballast alone. The North was having to compete with England on prices which was having an economic effect on the North. The North wanted the South for a captive buyers market and were successful through tariffs and blockades.

You ain't changing my mind about how it all went down. But you sure are projecting an image of how much you don't know about American history.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
Mike you think the southern aristocracy that did own most of the slaves was any less terroristic??

Absolutely. Southern slave owners didn't just kill slaves at will like Sherman and other Federal Generals proposed and did to the Indians. (Men, women, & children)

The South wasn't quite as dependent on the North as some would have us believe. Since British ships were constantly crossing the Atlantic for cotton,(if tariffs weren't too high to stifle the transactions) they must bring goods over for ship ballast alone. The North was having to compete with England on prices which was having an economic effect on the North. The North wanted the South for a captive buyers market and were successful through tariffs and blockades.

You ain't changing my mind about how it all went down. But you sure are projecting an image of how much you don't know about American history.

lolo, well you're reading the "Lost Cause" history apparently. The south kicked a bear without even knowing for sure if it even intended to attack and paid with almost the total destruction of the south during the war.....that's a fact Jack. Had the south been more diversified they would have had a bit more of a chance but almost total reliance on cotton ($200 million a year)and slave labor left them very weak. Hardly any real infrastructure made the blockades extremely effective. When you begin drafting kids to fight a war and still have a hard time mounting any sort of army you can kiss you ass goodbye. Meanwhile the economy of the north was booming.

I know I'll never change your mind but at least you'll get some information from a much less biased source if you don't ignore it.

he North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.

Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.

The industrialization of the northern states had an impact upon urbanization and immigration. By 1860, 26 percent of the Northern population lived in urban areas, led by the remarkable growth of cities such as Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit, with their farm-machinery, food-processing, machine-tool, and railroad equipment factories. Only about a tenth of the southern population lived in urban areas.

Free states attracted the vast majority of the waves of European immigration through the mid-19th century. Fully seven-eighths of foreign immigrants settled in free states. As a consequence, the population of the states that stayed in the Union was approximately 23 million as compared to a population of 9 million in the states of the Confederacy. This translated directly into the Union having 3.5 million males of military age - 18 to 45 - as compared to 1 million for the South. About 75 percent of Southern males fought the war, as compared to about half of Northern men.

The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory.

The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; five years From now or five thousand years from now. All history is a current event John Henrik Clarke
 

Latest posts

Top